Message to derby players

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

2 minutes ago, Blondest Goat said:

Can someone just go over this whole EFL / punishment / administration thing again for me?  I don't think it's been covered on the forum.

They stopped the sale of the club in December 20 by refusing to accept the findings of an independent panel of trained accountants and property law experts by creating a panel handpicked to go back over all charges using a League 2 ground as a model.  Derby were also given no right to re appeal.  They also kindly released two set of fixture lists for two divisions in case they decided to relegate.  This to placate a club who weren't in Derbys league during the time of said offences and despite us adhering to the deadlines they set for resubmitting accounts.

Not forgetting we only had to do this as they threw their toys out and put together a handpicked panel of friends who insisted on them after they lost.  They then may or may not have refused a Covid loan .  Bit sketchy.

They then deducted points based on a ruling that wasn't in place and advised if we didn't challenge the administration penalty they would assist us in all matters to get a sale as quickly as possible.  Then they decided to let Gibson hold up any sale and the American ambulance chaser constantly threaten to sue without any actual clarity of figure or reason for 5 and 8 months respectively.  This in order to save their own arse and outside any legal framework within administration as an actual court listed creditor.

To further hamper our chances they allowed our nearest relegation rival to sign Andy Carroll and 6 players over the course of the season despite now advising Reading being able to stick to the business plan drawn up was always a challenge.  Whilst allowing this, theyonly allowed us to agree one year deals with a clutch of promising youngsters who have left for sod all and tore up Marriotts one year extension- pre administration.  Despite bringing in 4.5 million pound in January sales they then decided we couldn't give a 4 month contract to a 38 yr old player on 4 k a week.  Previously they had advised this was OK .

They then retrospectively changed the rules and gave leniency for covid for all other clubs after we'd been reared. Stoke for example have written off 80 million in losses and sold the stadium and 60 million debt from one family member to another without any investigation or punishment.  I worked out that if they'd done this previously any punishment- originally thrown out remember-  would have been 2-3 points less for us.

Now we have the joy of Peterboroughs deferred 3 point penalty strangely deferred till December for no reason I can see.

I know you requesting this in jest.  But a quick overview saves the other 1000 pages.

 

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

It’s not trouble if you gain promotion though as countless others have proven.

Yes but that didn't happen - I'd rather not gamble the future of the Club, but Morris did.

[Foreveram]

20 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Yes but that didn't happen - I'd rather not gamble the future of the Club, but Morris did.

If we had beat Villa, we would most likely not be having this conversation.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

4 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

If we had beat Villa, we would most likely not be having this conversation.

Weirdly, that playoff competition was probably the toughest I can remember in terms of club size and player calibre so I could live with it as a stand alone moment.  The one that really annoyed me was the one we lost to Hull.  Should have beat them at a canter and would have played a fairly average Sheff Wednesday in the final.  That should have been the one. 

[Boycie]

59 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

If we had beat Villa, we would most likely not be having this conversation.

but it would have come in my opinion. Mel would have sold as soon as a viable offer came in. We know he’d have sold to any chancer too.

[B4ev6is]

47 minutes ago, Boycie said:

but it would have come in my opinion. Mel would have sold as soon as a viable offer came in. We know he’d have sold to any chancer too.

Do I think mel should cleared the debt before he cleared off.

[RoyMac5]

4 hours ago, Foreveram said:

If we had beat Villa, we would most likely not be having this conversation.

Lol. We didn't beat Villa and we are having this conversation. You're thinking he should have kept spending big?! 🤣

If Mel hadn't spent all the money and sold the stadium and then put us into administration we might not be having this conversation either. 

 

[Henrycav81]

19 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Lol. We didn't beat Villa and we are having this conversation. You're thinking he should have kept spending big?! 🤣

If Mel hadn't spent all the money and sold the stadium and then put us into administration we might not be having this conversation either. 

 

I was going to say if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle,but I think she’s allowed to be my uncle now balls or not 

[Blondest Goat]

5 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

They stopped the sale of the club in December 20 by refusing to accept the findings of an independent panel of trained accountants and property law experts by creating a panel handpicked to go back over all charges using a League 2 ground as a model.  Derby were also given no right to re appeal.  They also kindly released two set of fixture lists for two divisions in case they decided to relegate.  This to placate a club who weren't in Derbys league during the time of said offences and despite us adhering to the deadlines they set for resubmitting accounts.

Not forgetting we only had to do this as they threw their toys out and put together a handpicked panel of friends who insisted on them after they lost.  They then may or may not have refused a Covid loan .  Bit sketchy.

They then deducted points based on a ruling that wasn't in place and advised if we didn't challenge the administration penalty they would assist us in all matters to get a sale as quickly as possible.  Then they decided to let Gibson hold up any sale and the American ambulance chaser constantly threaten to sue without any actual clarity of figure or reason for 5 and 8 months respectively.  This in order to save their own arse and outside any legal framework within administration as an actual court listed creditor.

To further hamper our chances they allowed our nearest relegation rival to sign Andy Carroll and 6 players over the course of the season despite now advising Reading being able to stick to the business plan drawn up was always a challenge.  Whilst allowing this, theyonly allowed us to agree one year deals with a clutch of promising youngsters who have left for sod all and tore up Marriotts one year extension- pre administration.  Despite bringing in 4.5 million pound in January sales they then decided we couldn't give a 4 month contract to a 38 yr old player on 4 k a week.  Previously they had advised this was OK .

They then retrospectively changed the rules and gave leniency for covid for all other clubs after we'd been reared. Stoke for example have written off 80 million in losses and sold the stadium and 60 million debt from one family member to another without any investigation or punishment.  I worked out that if they'd done this previously any punishment- originally thrown out remember-  would have been 2-3 points less for us.

Now we have the joy of Peterboroughs deferred 3 point penalty strangely deferred till December for no reason I can see.

I know you requesting this in jest.  But a quick overview saves the other 1000 pages.

 

Good summary.  F... the EFL.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Blondest Goat

[kevinhectoring]

6 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

They stopped the sale of the club in December 20 by refusing to accept the findings of an independent panel of trained accountants and property law experts by creating a panel handpicked to go back over all charges using a League 2 ground as a model.  Derby were also given no right to re appeal.

These were adversarial proceedings. Us v them. If you’re sued by someone, and lose, and your brief tells you you should definitely appeal, what do you do ? Fact is, we were always likely to lose on amortisation, regardless of the accounting technicalities. 

Btw, we should applaud their decision not to appeal the stadium decision (which they also lost) because we got off lightly there, as we did with the £100k fine. 
 

“Derby were also given no right to re appeal.”  More accurate to say: “unlucky for us, the rules we approved and signed up to years ago gave us no further right of appeal”. 

[Mucker1884]

On 13/04/2023 at 16:56, B4ev6is said:

... and remember because of efl we so nearly never had a club to support. 

It is spelled "mel", not "efl".  

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

42 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

These were adversarial proceedings. Us v them. If you’re sued by someone, and lose, and your brief tells you you should definitely appeal, what do you do ? Fact is, we were always likely to lose on amortisation, regardless of the accounting technicalities. 

Btw, we should applaud their decision not to appeal the stadium decision (which they also lost) because we got off lightly there, as we did with the £100k fine. 
 

“Derby were also given no right to re appeal.”  More accurate to say: “unlucky for us, the rules we approved and signed up to years ago gave us no further right of appeal”. 

Totally untrue, those accounts were in situ for a considerable period of time and not questioned and were used for a number of years.  The reason being their was no legislation within their own rules to challenge them.  They were then ratified by an independent panel of EXPERTS as being valid.  Then the kangaroo court was convened with no right of appeal and no experts.  They didn't appeal the stadium any further after getting some geezer with a Lego model of Morecambes ground as their expert and made themselves look t****.

[G STAR RAM]

50 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

These were adversarial proceedings. Us v them. If you’re sued by someone, and lose, and your brief tells you you should definitely appeal, what do you do ? Fact is, we were always likely to lose on amortisation, regardless of the accounting technicalities. 

Btw, we should applaud their decision not to appeal the stadium decision (which they also lost) because we got off lightly there, as we did with the £100k fine. 
 

“Derby were also given no right to re appeal.”  More accurate to say: “unlucky for us, the rules we approved and signed up to years ago gave us no further right of appeal”. 

In what way did we get off lightly?

We held lengthy discussions with the EFL on the transaction and got approval, we even amended the sale figure to the one advised by the EFL.

With the amortisation there was the ambiguity over the method used, although had we been doing what the EFL thought it would have put the club in a better situation.

With the ground sale there was no basis for the charge being brought against us, absolutely none.

It was an arse covering exercise by the EFL and, with the poor case they put forward, I think it looked to be just an attempt at appeasing a certain Mr Gibson.

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Totally untrue, those accounts were in situ for a considerable period of time and not questioned and were used for a number of years.  The reason being their was no legislation within their own rules to challenge them.  They were then ratified by an independent panel of EXPERTS as being valid.  Then the kangaroo court was convened with no right of appeal and no experts.  They didn't appeal the stadium any further after getting some geezer with a Lego model of Morecambes ground as their expert and made themselves look t****.

It is probably the most bizarre process you could dream up.

An Independent panel listens to arguments put fotward by experts and reaches a conclusion.

If one side does not agreed with that conclusion the case then reverts to a panel hand picked by one of the parties to the case, which may or may not include people with relevant expertise.

If I remember correctly, even then we were not found guilty based on the facts of the case, merely on a technicality.

The most back to front process you could think of dreaming up!

[kevinhectoring]

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

In what way did we get off lightly?

We held lengthy discussions with the EFL on the transaction and got approval, we even amended the sale figure to the one advised by the EFL.

With the amortisation there was the ambiguity over the method used, although had we been doing what the EFL thought it would have put the club in a better situation.

With the ground sale there was no basis for the charge being brought against us, absolutely none.

It was an arse covering exercise by the EFL and, with the poor case they put forward, I think it looked to be just an attempt at appeasing a certain Mr Gibson.

In brief : on the stadium sale, David Clowes recently bought the stadium for 23m. He then told us he bought the club because having bought the stadium he needed to keep the club going to preserve the stadium value. So, there was a serious danger the value would fall below what he paid.        £80+m ?  We’d been kids making for years !  you’re havin a larf 

oh and did you read in the judgement how - following the sale -  the rental payable by the club was calculated !  If you want a giggle, take a peep.  
 

Amortisation: here’s the thing. The ‘competition’ only works if there’s a level playing field. That’s the theory. Of course the real world works differently, but these panels read the rules in a way that will protect the  ‘competition’ - and fair enough, it’s what the rules are intended to do. We were the only club in the 72 that adopted our approach. The only one. So much for the level playing field.      There was always a serious danger we would lose 

[kevinhectoring]

4 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Totally untrue, those accounts were in situ for a considerable period of time and not questioned and were used for a number of years.  The reason being their was no legislation within their own rules to challenge them.

But there ARE EFl rules to challenge them, that was our problem. The EFl rules require our accounts to comply with frs102. 

The fact is, our accounting policy if properly implemented probably did comply. BUT what was clear was that we were not  implementing it in a consistent manner. It was pretty clear we applied the policy with the aim of passing FFP rather than to give a ‘true and fair view’. So we were seeking unfair advantage. So there was always a serious danger we would lose  

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

22 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

But there ARE EFl rules to challenge them, that was our problem. The EFl rules require our accounts to comply with frs102. 

The fact is, our accounting policy if properly implemented probably did comply. BUT what was clear was that we were not  implementing it in a consistent manner. It was pretty clear we applied the policy with the aim of passing FFP rather than to give a ‘true and fair view’. So we were seeking unfair advantage. So there was always a serious danger we would lose  

Everyone does.  We have clubs trying to pass FFP by claiming they planned to sell players for ridiculous sums to comply with FFP but couldn't. Magic bean compliance. If there was any problem with these accounts the EFL had ample opportunity to flag it and we could have sold players.  As such they were responsible more than the club was.  A moot point as these accounts were cleared as acceptable when they stuck their nose in years after the event to cover their arses.  No rule applied at the time of filing.  

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

49 minutes ago, kevinhectoring said:

In brief : on the stadium sale, David Clowes recently bought the stadium for 23m. He then told us he bought the club because having bought the stadium he needed to keep the club going to preserve the stadium value. So, there was a serious danger the value would fall below what he paid.        £80+m ?  We’d been kids making for years !  you’re havin a larf 

oh and did you read in the judgement how - following the sale -  the rental payable by the club was calculated !  If you want a giggle, take a peep.  
 

Amortisation: here’s the thing. The ‘competition’ only works if there’s a level playing field. That’s the theory. Of course the real world works differently, but these panels read the rules in a way that will protect the  ‘competition’ - and fair enough, it’s what the rules are intended to do. We were the only club in the 72 that adopted our approach. The only one. So much for the level playing field.      There was always a serious danger we would lose 

An example of rents at Pride Park for only 278 metres of space.  Best part of 50 k p.a. The stadium is irrelevant.  The rental or sale of building large office space within this plot is the value. Another at 38k.  

https://www.salloway.com/commercial-property/unit-22-royal-scot-road-pride-park-derby-de24-8aj/

https://propertylink.estatesgazette.com/commercial-property-for-rent/pride-park-derbyshire

[kevinhectoring]

1 minute ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

An example of rents at Pride Park for only 278 metres of space.  Best part of 50 k p.a. The stadium is irrelevant.  The rental or sale of building large office space within this plot is the value. Another at 38k.  

https://www.salloway.com/commercial-property/unit-22-royal-scot-road-pride-park-derby-de24-8aj/

https://propertylink.estatesgazette.com/commercial-property-for-rent/pride-park-derbyshire

Wow development opportunity. Not 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 minute ago, kevinhectoring said:

Wow development opportunity. Not 

Sorry you've lost your argument.  I'll leave you to chunter in the corner